Xtro is kind of a cynical spin on E.T., the
mega-blockbuster which was released a few months earlier. Just as "E.T."
is a neologism for "Extra Terrestrial," so is "Xtro." The premise is
essentially to ask what would have happened if E.T, instead of being
an adorable little fellow, had been a murderous creature. This
film's advertising specifically referenced the cuddly Spielberg film
by featuring the catch phrase "not all extraterrestrials are
friendly."

In the opening scene, a young boy sees his dad
captured by aliens. I'm not sure why the xtros captured this
particular guy. Judging from the aliens' dentition, you'd think that
if they were to need humans on their planet, it would be dentists.
On the other hand, if they wanted to capture top-notch dentists,
they wouldn't be invading the U.K. At any rate, nobody believes the
lad's kidnapping story. People assume that dad ran off with some
floozie and the kid is making up stories to sublimate his pain. Some
years later, Dad returns - sort of. We know that the grotesque
aliens return, and that eventually seems to result in dad's
presence, after an alien impregnates a human woman. This particular
species seems to have a gestation period of about ten minutes,
because the woman blows up like a balloon and immediately gives
birth to an exact duplicate of the missing dad. We see him emerge,
fully-formed but bloody, from the woman's womb. I'm still trying to
figure out if dad was really dad or an alien impersonating dad, and
why that childbirth process was necessary in either case. One thing
is certain. That had to be one painful childbirth, because he came
out much larger than the woman who gave birth to him.

"Dad" returns to his home, remembering nothing of
the previous three years, but is not really welcomed with open arms,
since he has been away for so long that his wife has moved on with
her life. Mom and son now live with mom's new boyfriend and a sexy
au pair, giving the alien/dad plenty of interesting possibilities
for havoc, but the havoc is delayed for many minutes while mom and
dad engage in soap opera dialogue, try to get in touch with their
feelings, and criticize the Thatcher government, as if suddenly
trapped in a Ken Loach film.

Dad decides to get reacquainted with his son, and one
of the things he manages to accomplish during their bonding is to
imbue the lad with some telekinetic powers that allow him to animate
his toys. I'm not sure how this works, but the boy manages to bring
a toy soldier and a clown to life as a full-sized commando with
deadly military gear and an evil dwarf clown (right). He also
animates a toy tank with the ability to fire real rockets. Somehow
he also manages to summon a live panther, presumably from something
else in his toy box, although that bit is never really explained.

The scenes with the panther exist as non-sequiturs to
the rest of the movie, but I wouldn't get upset about that if I were
you, since the entire movie is a mess which really doesn't make much
logical or narrative sense in the first place.

If you start asking yourself why the script's events
are happening, you will be hard-pressed to formulate explanations.
This is not the kind of film where the screenwriter spent weeks
imagining what the aliens were like on their home planet, and then
tried to create a scenario to depict how their culture would
interface with humans. It's more like the kind of film which
resolves to make the grossest visuals possible, and uses the alien
premise as a loose framework to facilitate the shock and gore. There
are humans in cocoons and gratuitous snakes and pulsating eggs added
here and there for no special reason other than that they look
creepy. It's a true exploitation film.

Does it succeed on its own terms? In a way, yes, once
it ends its inexplicable dalliance with Ken Loach social realism. It
isn't consistent, of course. Some of the effects are very poor, like
the appearance of the alien ships, which look about as realistic as
the ships in
Colonel Bleep, but the film has some good moments as well. Some
of the slime and gore is effective enough to make your flesh crawl a
bit, and that is what some genre fans find appealing about this film
- well, that and the full-frontal nudity from a gorgeous future Bond
Babe, Maryam d'Abo, who made her screen debut in this film.

Anyway, how can you not love a film in which two of
the actors are Tik and Tok? (Credits to the right.) According to
IMDb, Tik and Tok were a Synth-rock group who
had a top 40 UK Single hit called "Cool Running."

Widescreen, anamorphically
enhanced (16x9). The colors have faded to green, and the print
is grainy, so the quality is barely acceptable overall.

Original American trailer

Behind-the-scenes and advertising photos,
as donated from various sources

17 minute interview with the director

One Deleted scene and two alternate
endings.

NUDITY REPORT

Maryam d'Abo shows her breasts
and her pubes in a sex scene. The portion of the scene when she
stands up was a full frontal in the full screen VHS version, but
the widescreen DVD transfer cuts off the bottom portion of her
body so that the only look at her pubes is in a close-up.

D'abo later shows her breasts one
more time, very briefly, in an interrupted sex scene.

The film had a fairly extensive
theatrical release in the UK, but I was not able to find any
statistics.

The meaning of the IMDb
score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics,
or a C- from our system.
Films rated below five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one
and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is.

My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but
will be considered excellent by genre fans, while
C- indicates that it we found it to
be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for
fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is
recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C-
that often, because we like movies and we think that most of
them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know
that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below
C-.

Based on this description, it's
a C-. Although it is a jumbled mess
of a film, gore and shock lovers really like some of the grosser
effects. Needless to say, it is a must-see for evil dwarf
completists.